Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

We test if within-person changes in political identities are associated with within-person changes in political animosity in two longitudinal studies (United States N = 552, Waves = 26; Netherlands N = 1,670, Waves = 12). Typical studies examine cross-sectional associations without assessing within-person change. Our work provides a stronger test of the relationship. We find that within-person changes in the strength of people's ideological and partisan identities are associated with increased political animosity. We found no such associations with within-person changes in identity direction. These patterns were robust to covariates and emerged in both studies. In addition to these average effects, we found substantial heterogeneity across participants in the associations among identity strength, identity direction, and political animosity. We did not find robust and replicable moderators for this heterogeneity. These findings suggest that identity strength (but not identity direction) is a key, if heterogenous, factor in changes in political animosity.

Empathy has the potential to bridge political divides. Here, we examine barriers to cross-party empathy and explore when and why these differ for liberals and conservatives. In four studies, U.S. and U.K. participants (total N = 4,737) read hypothetical scenarios and extended less empathy to suffering political opponents than allies or neutral targets. These effects were strongly shown by liberals but were weaker among conservatives, such that conservatives consistently showed more empathy to liberals than liberals showed to conservatives. This asymmetry was partly explained by liberals' harsher moral judgments of outgroup members (Studies 1-4) and the fact that liberals saw conservatives as more harmful than conservatives saw liberals (Studies 3 and 4). The asymmetry persisted across changes in the U.S. government and was not explained by perceptions of political power (Studies 3 and 4). Implications and future directions are discussed.

Across nine experiments (eight preregistered) involving Western and Asian samples, we showed that people providing ambiguous (vs. specific) responses to questions in various social scenarios are seen as less likable. This is because, depending on the social context, response ambiguity may be interpreted as a way to conceal the truth and as a sign of social disinterest. Consequently, people reported lower inclination to befriend or date individuals who appeared to provide ambiguous responses. We also identified situations in which response ambiguity does not harm likability, such as when the questions are sensitive and the responder may need to "soften the blow." A final exploratory study showed that response ambiguity also impacts personality perceptions-individuals providing ambiguous responses are judged as less warm, less extraverted, less gullible, and more cautious. We discuss theoretical implications for the language psychology and person perception literatures and practical implications for impression management and formation.

In two pre-registered experiments, we assessed how people cognitively represent meat and plant-based foods, to examine processes underlying dietary polarization in society. Food descriptions from U.K.-based omnivores (N_{Exp. 1} = 109; N_{Exp. 2} = 436) and vegans (N_{Exp. 1} = 111; N_{Exp. 2} = 407) were coded for features about consumption and reward (e.g., "rich," "indulgent," and "treat") or features independent of the consumption situation (e.g., "healthy," "protein," and "eco-friendly"). Participants used more consumption and reward features for diet-congruent dishes (meat dishes for omnivores and plant-based dishes for vegans) than for diet-incongruent dishes (vice versa). Omnivores focused on abstract, long-term consequences of plant-based foods, whereas vegans focused on the socio-political associations with meat foods. Consumption and reward features also positively predicted attractiveness ratings, the likelihood of ordering a dish, and eating intentions. These findings indicate the cognitive processes of polarized dietary groups that may hinder the mainstream transition to more sustainable food choices.

Extensive research shows that people are attracted to funny dating partners, with several competing, sometimes conflicting, explanations for why humor is strongly desired in a mate. The present research asks whether humor is interpreted as a reliable, hard-to-fake indicator of some other, valuable trait. Across six experiments, we manipulated humor in a hypothetical date, online dating profile, or video profile and asked which of several traits statistically linked to humor are reliably inferred about funny partners. Humor-specifically partners producing humor-consistently led to higher ratings of partner creative ingenuity. This effect was not moderated by gender, and mediated desirability for different types of partnership. Results further revealed stronger preference for a first-date activity requiring creative ingenuity with a funny versus non-funny partner. Humor may signal that a potential partner is skilled at creative problem-solving, which may be particularly important when considering various forms of partnership.

People often falsely believe that individuals from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are less harmed than those from higher SES backgrounds by a wide range of negative events. We report three studies (total N = 1,625) that provide evidence that this "thick skin bias" emerges at least in part because people overgeneralize otherwise accurate intuitions about adaptation. Across studies, participants accurately intuited that people adapt to psychophysical experiences (e.g., brightness, weight, and volume) but also inaccurately intuited that people similarly adapt to life hardships that actually tend to exacerbate the harm of future negative events. Experimentally decreasing the salience of psychophysical adaptation intuitions reduced the thick skin bias, suggesting a causal link between these adaptation intuitions and the belief that people in poverty are less vulnerable to harm and underlining the importance of studying how biased beliefs about the effects of poverty may perpetuate inequality.

Gender differences in systemizing and empathizing are sometimes attributed to inherent biological factors. We tested whether such effects are more often interpreted as reflecting men's and women's different learning affordances. Study 1 (N = 624) estimated gender differences in item-level activities from systemizing and empathizing scales (SQ, EQ) in large representative samples. Lay coders (Study 2, N = 199) and psychology experts (Study 3, N = 116) rated SQ and EQ activities as being more learned (vs. innate) and believed that men receive more systemizing and women receive more empathizing (Study 3 only) affordances. Items showing the largest gender differences in Study 1 were those rated as having the largest gender affordances (more than gendered genetic advantages) in Studies 2 and 3. Claims about inherent sex differences in systemizing, and to a lesser degree empathizing, appear to be out of step with a consensus view from the public and psychological scientists.

In several highly publicized hearings, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh presented two opposing accounts of an alleged sexual assault. In the wake of these proceedings, partisans appeared similarly divided in how they regarded this political event. Using a U.S. national sample (N = 2,474) and a mixed-methods design, we investigated partisans' perceptions of, and responses to, the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings. Respondents reported their views of the hearings soon after they occurred. We used topic modeling to analyze these open-ended responses and found uniquely partisan topics emerged, including judicial impartiality and due process. Acute stress (AS) responses to the hearings were also related to partisan identities and perceptions; both Republicans (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.78, 0.84]) and individuals who wrote more about Republican topics (IRR = 0.72, 95% CI = [0.56, 0.92]) reported lower AS than their Democratic counterparts. Results demonstrate different partisan perceptions with implications for mental health outcomes.

Groups have their health and well-being impacted by satisfying their members' needs and providing resources to help cope with threats. Multiple group memberships serve to accumulate these benefits and also provide resilience to the effects of group loss. However, the additional well-being benefits of belonging to multiple different types of group remain to be determined. In a preregistered cross-sectional survey in Nottingham, England (Study 1, N = 328), we found that group-type diversity predicted well-being and that this effect was fully serially mediated by increased creative self-efficacy, then reduced loneliness. To confirm our hypothesis in a more robust sample we conducted longitudinal analyses on the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) dataset (Study 2, N = 5,838) finding that group-type diversity at time one (T1) predicted well-being at T2 (4 years later), even when accounting for wellbeing and loneliness at T1. We discuss the implications for enhancing group-based health interventions.

We hypothesize a yet-unstudied effect of experiencing systemic stereotype threat on women's collective action efforts: igniting women's support for other women and motivation to improve organizational gender balance. Hypotheses are supported in two surveys (Study 1: N = 1,365 business school alumnae; Study 2: N = 386 women Master of Business Administration [MBA]), and four experiments (Studies 3-6; total N = 1,897 working women). Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that experiencing stereotype threat is negatively associated with women's domain-relevant engagement (supporting extant work on the negative effects of stereotype threat), but positively associated with women's support and advocacy of gender balance. Studies 3 to 6 provide causal evidence that stereotype threat activation leads to greater attitudes and intentions to support gender balance, ruling out negative affect as an alternative explanation and identifying ingroup solidarity as a mechanism. We discuss implications for working women, women leaders, and organizations striving to empower their entire workforce through developing equitable and inclusive practices.